Charismatic Christian:
“My fart smells good. Come on try it. Come on. Here, smell it, take a sniff. Yes there. Come on. Please!”
…
Muslims:
“My fart smells good. You got to smell my fart. I will behead you if you refuse. I will behead you if you say that my fart is not fucking smell good. I will behead you if you try to fart yourself.”

Judaism:
“My fart smells good. Those who can’t fart like me are not the choosen one, and should be banished from eternal life.”
3 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personA G likes this.
o
PS Judaism: “What does the Talmud Say about farting? Let me study”…30 years later…”the learned rebbe do not agree on this, other than tha farts are fro Y_H. I will travel to Krakow to see the rabbi there. If I die before completeing the journey, my sons will continue studynig this question.”
3 hours ago · LikeUnlike
o
VGB absolutely agree with A!!!
3 hours ago · LikeUnlike
o
PS Taoism: “The smell is the fart; the fart is the smell. Those who fart don not smell; those who smell do not fart”
3 hours ago · LikeUnlike
o
DD hinduism: “sorry but which of my farts do you refer? there’s millions of them”

buddhism : ” BUDDHA PALM STANCE FARTS!”
3 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleTheodore Manthovani and A G like this.
o
PS Unitarian: “In the interest of interfaith understanding, let’s smell each other’s farts.”
3 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personBAS likes this.
o
PS Mormon: Hey, which one of my wives farted just now?
3 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleTheodore Manthovani and A G like this.
o
PS Catholics: “And He said, ‘take and smell of this.'” Or in the new, more colloquial translation, “Dudes, get a whiff of this.”
3 hours ago · LikeUnlike
o
PS Presbyterian: “it was foreordained that I should fart, and that you should smell it.”
3 hours ago · LikeUnlike
o
PS ‎@A: absolutely effen brilliant post!
3 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personA G likes this.
o
PS Multiculturalism: “all farts are equally valid; and all smell equallly nice. Except farts from white males: they REALLY, REALLY STINK!
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike
o
A G whoa, Pat’s on fire! LOL
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike
o
PS Feminism: “Women don’t fart”
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike
o
PS Jesus: “By thier farts ye shall know them.”
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personA G likes this.
o
PS Skinheads/Ultranatinalists: “Only niggers, kikes, spics, gooks, and filthy foreigners fart! If we could kick all their asses out, this country would smell great!”
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike
o
PS NazisM: “Aryan farts burn with a clear blue flame.”
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike
o
BAS i’m gonna put these farts on my note 🙂
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personND likes this.
o
PS Buddhism: “The jewel is in the lotus. And the fart is in the air. Uhoh, the load is in my pants!”
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike
o
PS ‎@A, yup on fire, and itchin to light one!
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike
o
PS Zen: The Master was in his hundredth year, and I in my eightieth. He was soon to depart.
As a boy, I asked him, “How shall I know the Zen”?
And he replied, “Study.”
Now my hair was white, and my back bent. “Master, I begged , before you leave the flesh, tell me what is the Zen? I have done as you commanded me all those years ago, but I know not the Zen. “
He smiled, farted thunderously, and died.
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike
o
PS Animism: Who farted?
Not me! It was that rock!
Let’s worship it.

I wonder if I were a Christian soldier that is sent to slaughter the Arians. Then I asked the Pope, you sure these Arians are heretic? Then the pope said, well 99%. There is 1% chance that we’re the one being heretical. I see, I said. “And God wants us to kill those who believe wrong stuffs right?” Well, “50-50, I’d say,” said the Pope.

1. We can’t count on miracles. So if somebody claims that by following certain religious tenets then we can end corruption, that guys just need to show us more evidence just like everyone else. We also can’t count on God doing things God don’t usually do, namely interfering in normal natural order of universe as predicted very accurately by science. That’s assuming God exist in the first place of course.
2. We can’t count on unselfish heroism. First most humans are selfish. Second, those who aren’t selfish sacrifice himself for the sake of others. Those people lessen intensives for all others to play fair.
3. We can’t count on government. Corruption is a lost for the people but is profitable for government official.

So what may work?

1. Free market. Less government less things to corrupt. Also the best and brightest would rather start biz rather than becoming corrupt officials.
2. If you really want redistribution of wealth, you need people to be smart. You may think that atheistic people are dumb at getting to heaven, but they tend to be smarter at accomplishing anything verifiable and disprovable because that’s where they put their brain is. That’s why Denmark can practice socialism with minimum distortion. That’s why in most religious country the one getting rich is the religious leaders rather than the people. Hate atheists if you may, but listen to them.

The other way around doesn’t work as well. A->B, we knows B, it doesn’t logically imply A. While it’s not a perfect reasoning, it’s still a good reasoning. It’s the kind of reasoning scientific theory is used. It’s the gold standard to test all theories. The question is how good?

Let’s compute P(A|B). Read that as probability of A, given that B is known.

What is that?

Well, it’s simple. Imagine if we throw a dart 1 million times to a Venn diagram whose area is proportional to the probability that something may be true. Let’s compute the number of darts that fall on B. Then let’s compute the probability that the darts fall on B and A. That is, the probability that the darts are in area of BOTH A and B. That is the probability that A is true, given B is true. That is, the probability that our darts fall in A area given that we know the darts are in B area.
Hence, P(A|B) is P(A^B)/P(B).

If A implies B, that means every darts that fall in A area will fall in B area. That means A is contained in B. Hence, P(A^B) is just P(A).

Hence, we got P(A|B)=P(A)/P(B).

Because P(B) is less than 1, P(A|B) will be bigger and equal than P(A). How big?

Well it’s how unobvious P(B) is. A theory that can predict unobvious conclusion is then a good theory. A theory that can only predict
1. Obvious conclusion
2. Unprovable/unverifiable conclusion

Obviously if A is true, B is true. However, what about the other way around? Well, here B, sun exist, is obvious. Hence, the idea that God created Sun does not get a lot of boost from existence of Sun. Being able to imply that sun exist is, how can I say it, NOT impressive.

Now let’s take a look at another:
A: God spoke in Sinai to 3 million people (Cradle of Jews’ belief)
B: 3 million people listened God spoke to them.

Okay, this one is slightly more impressive. If 3 million people listened to a loud thunderous voice, then yea, we have something worth looking here. However, we don’t know whether B is true or not. We can’t verify it. I wasn’t there when God supposedly spoke at Sinai. Jews in their campaign of killing the Palestine have intensive to maintain that beliefs. Yes, P(A|B) is high. But P(B) is not high either. Hence, P(A) is not very good.

Now let’s take a look at another:
A: Gravity pulled rocks at 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration.
B: Rock did fall at 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration.

All right, here typical scientific theory is very reliable. When we drop rocks again and again and again and see that it ALWAYS fall at 9.8 m/s^2, we sort of know that A is a VERY good theory. Still it’s not perfect. It’s still a logical fallacy. Basically we conclude A from B rather than the other way around. But it’s still a very good reasoning.

Here, B is not obvious. It’s not something every body knows, at least not before the theory of gravity is born. People, for example, used to think that the speed is constant rather than the acceleration is constant. People tend to think that heavier objects should fall faster. However, this theory worth learning.

This one should pretty much kill the religion. If A->B, we can’t imply A from B. However if B is proven false then so is A. It doesn’t effectively kill the religion straight. There will be discussions on how false B is, etc. But a few stones like this then we’ll see how P(A) is very unlikely.

Let’s try again:
A: God will always notify a prophet from malicious intents of his adversaries.
B: A prophet died of poisoning.

That should be a big one. I guess, one morale of the story is that it’s far easier to destroy a claim than to strengthen it.

Let’s try again:
A: Paul the Octopus can correctly predict who wins world cup.
B: His prediction is correct.

This seems to be quite impressive. However, we need to know that Paul is just lucky and out of 2^8=256 animals, the expected value that one is like Paul is already quite close to 1.

That would have been impressive if we do not take into account that only countries with oil can afford to be ruled by theocracy. But it’s worth examining.

There are 2 main beliefs in the world. Scientific claims and Religious claims. Most scientific claims are disprovable and many are disproved. So we sort of know that the one that’s left will be hard to disprove. Most religious claims are simply hard to disprove. That’s why religions die slowly. However, some religious claims are disprovable. Often the embarrassing aspects of religions are well hidden under censorship.

Those censorship are often justified based on something not very obvious, like laws against “insulting” a religion that is somehow applied against honest inquiry rather than true mindless insult. However, due to internet and wiki leaks, it’s difficult to destroy all such information and discussions.

One (and the only one) I know how to see if we’re learning something worthwhile when it comes to getting closer to truth that I know of is how a theory EXPLAINS and PREDICT UNOBVIOUS facts.

The only “religion” that hold the world record of again and again, correctly predicting UNOBVIOUS facts are scientific methods. Everything else fall far lower.

Again and again, evolutionary psychology, game theory, political science, correctly predict humans behavior. By supposing that religion is a meme, evolutionary psychologist can correctly predict the kind of religious doctrines that are popular among the population.

However, truthfulness is not the only thing that matter when it comes to theory. Usefulness matters a lot to. If you’re seeing a rocket coming to your town. And you have to guess whether it’s a nuke or just a doodad, you would assume it’s a nuke, irrelevant of evidence and launch your counter missiles. As long as the cost of the counter missiles are far cheaper than the cost of guessing incorrectly then it’s obviously appropriate to presume it’s a nuke.

So how does that works when it comes to religion? After all religion claimed that you will go to heaven and hell based on what you believe.

For that, I cannot say much. However, there are a couple of things I can say for sure. For ALL aspects of life that’s disprovable/verifiable, scientific method will EVENTUALLY, give better results than any religions.

In other word, if you want to be rich, to get laid, to make your country rich, you will eventually be more successful if you use scientific atheistic method than if you count on religions. Keep in mind that I am saying EVENTUALLY here. Science maybe accurate but it’s new. Religions maybe wrong but it’s old. Even though the reasoning behind religion is false, if it’s too false, then those practicing it would have been so screwed. Hence, there are some truth behind all major religions.

The best way to see this is by looking at communism. Communism is wrong. Humans maximize their selfish interest. When those who are productive are not allowed to be richer than the best and brightest will be dictators and corrupt officials. So even though communism may make more sense than religions, capitalist countries are richer. Just 30 years ago religious fundamentalists are allies to capitalists.

I don’t think it’s a fair comparison though. Dubai, which is islamic, is also rich even without oil. So that worth examining. However, I would avoid anyone that uses terror to impose their will to turn any country into an islamic country. That people will turn the country into Taliban way more than Dubai. The day of religion is over and they’re just not realizing it. We shouldn’t be caught on their whirlpool of doom.

Nowadays, I would safely say that the main enemies of capitalism is no longer socialism. Hei, we want everybody to be rich too. Properity’s main enemy would be their once strongest ally, religious fundamentalists.

What about aspects of religions that are undisprovable? Things like their main selling points, like heaven or hell. Well, we don’t know. However, we can make pretty good guesses. If they’re wrong on area we can disprove or keep avoiding making disprovable claims, how do we guess that they’re right on things that are not disprovable?

Say one atheist is a good capitalist. Say another religious bigot is a fundamentalist terrorist. Say the atheist is wrong and God exist. What are the chance, that the terrorist will go to heaven and the capitalist will go to hell? Both has little probability because both are not supported by any worthy evidence. However, the other way around is more likely still.

It’s difficult to make people change. But one thing we can do is to show them that they’ve been doing the same thing on most aspects of life. Our Math, Biology, and Physics are pretty much atheistic. We no longer ask bible, or quran, to explain how to build skyscrapper or how to launch rocket on the moon. Here, non religious approach is what people use to get things done and that’s just that.
However, quite often, on what truly matters in life, people resort to religions. People resort to religions to pick a mate, to decide how to deal with others, to vote, etc. That’s because on those area, religions still work. After all religious people successfully reproduce more than atheists. They also tend to be more successful politically.
If we can show them that people can attract mates and be powerful through atheistic understanding, people would at least learn more about secular approach to analyze their problem.
There are many reasonable explanation why people still use religions. It’s basically similar to the reason why people use emotion or instinct at all rather than purely their ratio.
The more something is important, the more that thing is hardwired in our brain. In other word, to successfully reproduce in the gene pool, humans do not need to think. They just need to follow their instinct and feeling. Quite often the way to win is to hurt others. Such thoughts are often hidden deep in humans’ subconscious mind. People want to feel that they’re good but being good is just not the way to maximize their profit.
Instinctively, for example, humans want to get rid competitors. Deep inside, people want to control, enslave, and kill others. However, they need a veneer. A way to justify that things are good. Here, religions give them the veneer. Religions allow them to get the benefit of screwing others without having to feel bad about themselves.
Hence, it doesn’t matter how wrong religion is. As long as religious people keep having that edge, people will be religious.
So how do we persuade people to see the world from atheistic points of view?
Still by showing the benefit.
There is a progress in science. First science works on aspects of life with cooperative aspects. It doesn’t hurt anyone to believe in Newton’s mechanic. It benefits everyone that the truth show up. When it comes to economic truth for example, things start getting controversial. Even though free market countries are richer, many do not like it. Hence, for many years, people do use religions to select their economic system. After all, science maybe true, but young, and religions may be irrational but old and proven. So for a while religion is actually on the side of capitalism and more religious countries are richer because they are capitalistic.
Then science catch up. Now, we no longer need religion to see that free market works. We have plenty of evidence that wealth of a nation depends on economic freedom. So, science then start answering economic issues replacing religions.
Politic and sexual selection, however is more controversial than even economic. The zero sum aspect of the game is greater. For every piece of power held by one guy it’s less power for others. For every one hot babe that picks you, there will be another male that would have to pick someone uglier or jerk of to Miyabi.
Making the world a better place is not a big turn on. Humans are selfish. The one that masked their selfishnest are quite often the one most selfish because they want to get rich by screwing others.
The easiest way is to persuade them to read evolution theory of course. But why bother reading evolution theory?
Well there is something in evolution theory that explains how to attract mates beyond what religions teach. There is also plenty of atheistic analysis on politic. Robert Green, Matt Ridley, are great sources of this type of thinker. People with atheistic understanding of these aspects tend to have an edge. People that think that God gives mandates to leaders, will be easily controlled and exploited by people that knows that power comes from barrel of guns to those who control the army and the media. Giving this benefit will motivate people to at least learn, understand, and use atheistic evolutionary psychology to get the most in life.
Most ideologies, and religions, for example, will tell you that beauty doesn’t matter. Evolutionary psychology not only predict that beauty matters a lot, but also correctly predict that people will try to convince you otherwise.
After all sexual selection is pretty much a zero sum game. One’s victory always means another defeat. Hence, evolutionary psychology and game theory would correctly predict that most religious guidance on how to get laid will not only be wrong, but will quite often be the opposite of what’s true.
If you’re a hot woman and you want to attract a high quality husband, you’d have a much better chance if you show some cleavage than wearing burqha. Quite obviously many will compel you to do the opposite. Most males do not want prince charming to see your beauty. Also most girls want to get rid pretty girls from competition.
Here, an atheistic girl, will get better mate, if she understand evolutionary psychology. Hence, she’ll have intensive to study evolutionary psychology, and will be sympathetic to atheistic causes more.

1. Anti prostitution and anti poligamy laws are there to protect men that can’t pay.
2. Government intervention in private lives serve the interests of governments’ officials. The rest are interests of those who compete and hate you.
3. Life is almost a zero sum game.
4. Humans are selfish.
5. Free market is the fairest boss.
6. Women are not fair. Be nice to them and they hurt you and they’ll argue that you’re the meanest baddest guy on earth. Be mean to them and they’ll **** and **** and **** and **** and *** you and **** for you.
7. Bitching about life is feminine.
8. Anti women trafficking laws are there to protect women. Namely, women in rich countries from cheaper competition.
9. 75% of life is either competition or war. Most people hate competition.
10. Don’t get married unless government prohibits all better alternatives. Check all alternatives first.
11. House wives are effectively a low paying employee with high severance pay that comes in the form of stock option.
12. Getting married is like Jews asking Nazis to write Israel’s constitution.
13. Humans are selfish. We’re also bigotic and hypocrites and cruel.
14. Self interests are source of all humans’ behavior, including morality.
15. Conscience is your instinct telling you that you may get caught by another earthly humans.
16. Heaven and hell do not affect life on earth. Beliefs of heaven and hell does. So lie all you want about it. You won’t get caught. Just make sure that either you live in a country valuing freedom of religion or that your followers are more politically powerful.
17. Wealth do not buy happiness, but sex is better than happiness.
18. Wealth do not buy love, but sex is more important.
19. Prettier girls tend to have have smart rich parents.
20. Smart and pretty girls are more precious than your life time earning. They’re worth killing for, if you can get away with it. Many bloodshed in the name or religions, truth, wealth, ideology, are really bloodshed about who is going to get the babes.
21. It’s impossible to be too good in a world full of evil.
22. When you don’t maximize your profit you’re hurting your self, you’re also hurting everyone else. Societies have no reason to be fair when the best and brightest do not take advantage of all unfairness. Without fairness we will kill each other.
23. Question religions. Don’t trust anything on faith, especially, faith of those who hate you. Most humans tend to hate each other.
24. Greed ubber alles.
25. The more something is good, the more everyone will say you’ll go to hell for it. They do not want you to be happy.
26. Be evil, and grab the cream of the crop. Be good, and you’ll end up doing something more evil for the scraps the bad guys left.
27. Don’t curse wealth acquire it. Don’t curse power, acquire it. Don’t curse playboy, be one. Don’t curse dictators. The people asked for it when they oppose free market yet not wanting to know politic.
28. Religious people worship themselves. This theory explains their behavior accurately.
29. Beauty is bone deep but not deeper.
30. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences. Romance is total bullshit.
31. Capitalists ubber alles.
32. People are not fair. They just pretend they do.
33. Blessed be those who breed like rabbit for their kind will inherit the earth.
34. When it comes to live, the best answer is the one everyone wants to censor.
35. Politeness is root of a lot of social ills for it’s lack of honesty. But being polite is useful because people would kill each other among THEMselves rather than you while YOU get along just fine with everyone.

There is mainly one reason why people want degrees, to have a job. There is mainly one reason why employers want to look at ones’ degree. To guess whether this person can do the job or not.

A degree signals that a person is capable to do a job. Also, most degree granting institution provide courses that makes people capable to do jobs.

As anything in economy, the most efficient ways to accomplish things tend to proliferate. Say I am buying a pencil. Say a pencil producers insist on mixing the lead in the pencil with gold. The process will make their pencils more expensive. To stay in biz, the producers will need to raise the price of that pencil. That will deter consumers from buying pencils.

The point is somebody got to pay for that doodad. If the producers pay that, then the producers will go bankrupt. The consumers pay that, then consumers will choose not to buy and producers will go bankrupt too.

What about if governments pay for the doodad? I’ll come back to that latter. In fact, that’s the main way anything inefficient flourish in our world. Government pays for the doodad or prohibits alternatives.

Is getting a degree efficient?

One thing for sure is it’s expensive. Decent international or national plus schools cost around $5k per year. People need to be in school for 18 years before getting a degree. If you spend $5k for education at degrees for 18 years, and you can turn $1 in your pocket into $1.2 latter, your bank accounts would have been reduced by $640k.

If you invest that $640k at 20% return per year, you would have gotten $128k per year. Indonesian typical entry level salary for programmer is $300 per month or $3600 per year.

Why 18 years? Because government says so. It’s difficult to cut of those years.

Do schools teach their students efficiently?

My physic teacher told me about how government conduct a seminar to train Math teachers. The teachers have to sign that they attend the seminar for 7 days even though the seminars are only 3 days. Those who do not attend or do not sign up will have their teaching license revoked.

The reason is obvious. Whoever makes that seminar will claim a 7 days expenditure while spending only for 3 days.

It costs government a lot of money to make those 7 days seminars. It’s inefficient. Under normal free market mechanism, anything inefficient will not be done. Why pay 7 days if the seminar is only 3 days? Also why attend seminars you do not want to attend? But because governments pay for the seminar, inefficiency flourish.

Is this happening only on corrupt countries like Indonesia? Not really.

I still remember when I study programming in UW Madison. I was so afraid of getting a bad grade that I did my homework early. Because I did my homework early, I had to learn the material to make the program much earlier than the lecture.

So why the hell should I attend the lecture if without lectures I could already understand the material, as shown by the fact that my homework was done?

If we divide schools’ teaching component, it’s pretty obvious that lectures are the most expensive part. Yet many people learn from books by themselves efficiently. People that can do that are actually better workers than those who cannot, and hence employers would prefer to hire them. I know. As an employer that’s what I would do.

Many parents put their kids to study oversea to avoid indoctrination. However, normal schools always have indoctrination courses because governments’ say so. So here, quite obviously this type of system is not going to prevail under free market. Recently there are cracks in the system.

An institution can teach students without mandatory indoctrination content if they do not claim to be an educational institution. Great. I’ll put my student there then. Also even Indonesian government allows people getting high school degrees by taking tests. Unfortunately that’s only open for students above 18 years old. But still it’ll be a great alternatives many would try instead.

Not claiming to be an educational institution means the student do not get a degree that Indonesian government acknowledge. Big deal. We can buy degrees. Some employers hire based on IQ anyway.

And what about the fact that degrees signals capability? Well, for some jobs, like programming, a 10 years old high IQ is can be more productive than a low IQ graduate students. A lot of what contemporary jobs need are common mathematical sense. And IQ signals that more than degrees.

And what’s the cost of a reliable IQ tests? Mensa provided that for a mere Rp. 100k. It’s $10.

Now, if people can study programming by themselves, and then solve IQ tests or google jam, then they would get MOST of what schools offer at much cheaper price.

Not doing that would be like sprinkling gold in our pencil leads. Somebody will have to pay the extra costs.

It could be the parents, which mean such parents will go bankrupt and produce less kids. It could be the employers that will indirectly pay for the extra costs. But they’re less elastic. Then there is another circumstances. Government pays for the extra costs.

However, under globalization, democracy, and freedom of speech, the people realize more and more that government’s expenditure sucks. No longer any countries can invest so much money on inefficiencies. Too much money on education means higher tax that will drive business away.

In addition, jobs nowadays are different than jobs before. Information change rapidly. To think that you can go to school, learn stuff, and be educated for the whole of your life is just insane. People look at capability to learn new tricks more than tricks you already know. That’s where IQ tests trample degrees once more.

More and more countries are letting free market govern their education. Those who don’t will keep losing their best and brightest overseas turning their countries into hell holes.

The cheap mensa test is a no brainer for anyone needing job as programmers, at least for the smart.

Libertarian Minarchism is fine. However, we have one problem. Why would government choose to only guard security? Why would it be to the best interest of whoever is in power to only guard security if they can make even more money by using their power to siphon money from society?
Be it dictators, corrupt officials, or the progressive?
It’s the same problem of who watch the watcher
As globalization happens, profit margin of governing will get less and less and we’ll be more and more libertarians. However, I won’t hold my breath till it happens.
To have a good government, namely, the government that we like most, whatever it is, we need to ensure that those who would go forward and agree to govern will make more money when they do what we want rather than the other way around. Such president will most likely be smart and will earn more than CEO. Most people are paying peanuts for their leaders and get stealing monkeys, predictably.

Say you lived in an anarchic country. A bunch of mobs wanted to rob your money. You’re a libertarian. What you would do is to pay another mobs to defend you right? Not simply because you’re right that mobs will defend you. You need to pay up.

Say you lived in a litigious country. A bunch of mobs wanted to sue you for your money. You’re a libertarian. What you would do is to pay lawyers to defend you right? Not simply because you’re right means lawyers will defend you for free. You need to pay up.

Say you lived in a democratic country. A bunch of voters vote to tax you. You’re a libertarian. Well, it’s the same game. You just need to somehow persuade enough voters to be on your side. It may not be free.

You can:
appease voters such as in socialism
appease dictators, corrupt officials, and politicians.
appease religious leaders
steal money from the people and use that to appease dictators, officials, politicians, and religious leaders
move to another country. If your country is already the best, you’re asking too much. If no other countries want to accept you, something is probably wrong with you.
bitch all your life how the world is unfair

And yes those are part of the games. If people resort to force, then force is part of the game. In fact one of the best argument against socialism is that those running the fastest can and often will hit the hardest. As free market grow big and people gets richer and richer, I start seeing that a little socialism MAY be better than the other options. The question is how small, and whether those appeasements beget more appeasements or more freedom. Some people can’t be appeased. Some can.

I am not suggesting any new thing. Just do what’s work and stop bitching about how the world are not purely libertarian. Let’s just admit that free market works too well in bringing prosperity. Gini index is like spring. It’s just happen that when the top gets richer, they value money less they’d be willing to pay more to get people on their side.

If you don’t agree with me, fine. Come up with better ideas that work better. Just don’t bitch and blame the world. That’s not going to get us anywhere. If you want to bitch, that’s fine too. But let’s just say that I see many better ways.